Provincial representatives came away from a Jan. 17 meeting of federal-provincial senior agriculture officials convinced that the federal government will not be dissuaded from launching the new five-year Agricultural Policy Framework April 1 despite provincial reservations and deepening farmer opposition.
When ministers meet in Toronto Jan. 31, they expect federal minister Lyle Vanclief to promise more flexibility but insist that to keep federal funding, the APF must be launched April 1 despite lack of detail over how it will work over the five-year commitment.
“He seems committed to that,” Ontario agriculture minister Helen Johns said in a Jan. 20 interview. “My producers are not happy.”
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
She said Ontario will be forced to find some way to use existing funds to mitigate the bad effects of the APF if that happens. “The best approach would be for us to get a workable plan through the APF but at this particular point, we do not have that.”
Ottawa is insisting that April 1 will start a transition toward a five-year program in which production insurance and an expanded Net Income Stabilization Account program will be the only nationally funded safety net programs.
There is a $1.1 billion federal commitment for each of those years.
In the face of criticism, Vanclief has hinted he may be willing to amend his proposal that an expanded NISA allow farmers to withdraw money to invest in on-farm environmental and food safety projects and that all federal funding for provincial “companion programs” be ended after three years.
But the provinces continue to complain about federal inflexibility.
“It continues to be a fairly frustrating process,” said a provincial official who took part in the Jan. 17 federal-provincial meeting. “There is a lack of federal leadership and when there is a flash of leadership, it goes in strange directions.”
The official, speaking on a condition of no attribution, noted that seven months after the APF was signed in principle in Halifax and two months before it is to take effect, three provinces still have not signed – Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan.
“Some of those who signed are wondering why they did,” he said. “The biggest issue this late in the game is that there is little farmer buy-in.”
That became even clearer Jan. 20 when the Canadian Federation of Agriculture broadened and deepened its opposition to the APF as it is proposed for April 1.
CFA president Bob Friesen sent a memo to the federal cabinet urging them to change the conditions of implementation and to grant an extension in existing programs so new programs can be properly designed.
Vanclief has insisted he must begin implementation April 1 or risk losing federal funding under the terms of the cabinet agreement to spend more than $5 billion over five years.
“The fundamental concern from the producers’ perspective is that the proposals for new programs do not seem to deliver any improvements over the current set of programs,” said a CFA analysis sent to cabinet ministers preparing for a policy discussion retreat before the House of Commons reconvenes Jan. 27.
“While analysis by Agriculture Canada officials indicate the new set of programs may have increased stabilization capacity, this comes through increased costs to producers.”
The farm lobby complaint is that there is no more federal money than there has been for the past three years, programs are supposed to be expanded and producers will have to pick up the difference through higher premiums.
Meanwhile, provinces would not be able to maintain programs designed for local conditions, partially funded by Ottawa, under current proposals. The federal plan does not recognize the damage done to farmers by foreign subsidies.
And federal proposals to make the government-supported NISA program also a source of farm investment funds would leave one of the key instruments of the APF open to trade challenges.
Farmers have been voicing their concerns throughout the process, said Friesen. “These suggestions have apparently gone unheeded.”
And while the government has promoted the new policy as moving agriculture “beyond crisis management,” the flaws may actually make the crisis worse, complained the CFA.
